Are we (American voters) immature?
The reason Americans have turned against health-care reform, after electing President Obama in part for promising it, is simple: Despite protestations to the contrary, Americans don’t like change. You wouldn’t know it, of course, if you listen to politicians in high-pander mode, or to talk radio hosts of the right or TV pundits of the left. Or, for that matter, if you listened to the president of the United States.
Why does this happen? Some people (including me) say the voters are immature. Politicians (and those talk radio fellows again) are always telling them that they are wise and those folks in Washington are fools. Pollsters seek and validate their opinions on subjects they haven’t bothered to learn anything about. Politicians drown them in benefits with no thought of how the bills will be paid. No wonder that citizens turn out like spoiled children. But “immature” is a label, not an explanation.
It’s so nice to be loved 🙂
Personally I think the one displaying the immaturity here is Kinsley. It’s easy to try and win an argument by calling names, and liberals are great at it especially if they can somehow work in a Hitler reference, but coming up with an explanation or a reason you are right is harder. Harder still is convincing people why. Kinsley doesn’t even try. He offers a “the mob is stupid platitude as the reason for the Democrats inability to accomplish health care reform.
It’s just a guess, but my own suspicion is that the raucous town hall meetings that blindsided pols and press alike reflect the voters’ true feelings — misinformed, perhaps, but sincere — and their previous passionate demands for what they now passionately oppose — in a word, “change” — were empty ritual. Discontent verging on anger is almost the price of admission to our political culture these days. You’re nobody if you’re not furious at Congress and/or the media and/or your health care and/or the president. To believe in your country’s institutions is virtually unpatriotic.
Now look at Rush Limbaugh in contrast. He is loud and bombastic, occassionally he is offensive, and despite his own claims of 99.6% accuracy (or whatever) he is often wrong, at least in details if not in general, but for every opinion he offers he has a reason and he can usually drag it out of his stack of stuff on a moments notice. Who are you more likely to believe? Myself, I tend to favor the guy who doesn’t call me an idiot and has some facts to back him up. That is why the Democrats are losing this debate. Their belief that we are too stupid to read the bill and their inability to back their claims.